Society is Better When You are Offended

Jul 08, 2015

by Cameron Dominy, TFF Summer InternCharleston Southern University

As George Orwell so aptly stated, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” In lieu of the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges SCOTUS decision, a group of my coworkers and I took to the streets to put this to the test. We posed the following two scenarios to those we met:

Question 1:

An African American woman owns a bakery, and has for years. A white male enters the bakery and orders a cake. He asks that the baker decorate the cake with a large confederate flag across its surface. The baker refuses. Should the baker still have to make the cake for the man?

Question 2:

An African American woman owns a bakery, and has for years. A white male enters the bakery and orders a cake. He asks that the baker create the cake for his upcoming same sex wedding. The baker refuses. Should the baker still have to make the cake for the man?

While the responses to the initial question were interesting, perhaps the most fascinating moments were the few, tense seconds following the presentation of scenario two. For those of the opinion that the baker, regardless of conviction, still must make the first cake, the response was easy. But for the majority, the people who saw forcing a business owner to bake the first type of cake as ridiculous, the pause was uncomfortable indeed. Most who we spoke to easily recognized that the small business owners right to conviction, needed to, at the very least, be revered, respected, and only removed in the most crucial of circumstances. To them, scenario number one was not a critical enough situation to warrant the baker legally losing her ability to decide. Almost universally, the understanding was that it was foolish to remove this precious right to pursue personal convictions in either hypothetical situation we presented. In short; if they wouldn’t force the African American woman to bake the confederate flag cake, it would be blatantly inconsistent to insist that a similar woman lay down her rights for different, yet still moral argument. The situation deserved more discussion, and the people understood the value of such dialogue regardless of personal opinions.

But what if we, in our little experiment, had taken the questioning one step further? What if, we had asked those who recognized the importance of individual conviction in both situations if the woman should not only be coerced into the legal withdrawal of her liberty of conviction, but should also lose the right to openly express any moral opposition. No doubt the response would have been a resounding “NO”. The removal of one right seemed foolish. Arguing that the loss of speech was warranted would have looked downright ridiculous. To remove the possibility what they had just recognized as a needed discussion would be counterintuitive, and ultimately harmful.

To be clear, there are certain times when our rights conflict with tangible societal good. For instance, the public isn’t told about certain national security measures the government takes, because our right to know conflicts with the societal interest of homeland security. Even our free speech rights are in some way limited. As the classic example goes, you can’t scream fire in a crowded theatre.

What has been illustrated in our society most recently however, is a growing number of the American public's belief that the right to free speech extends only to the line of personal offense, as defined by the party on the receiving end of criticism. The belief that offense matters more than reality, that perceived intent means more than actual circumstance. This conflict has been has played out on a national scale, through the publicizing of the case against Sweet Cakes by Melissa, an Oregon bakery that refused to bake cakes for same sex weddings. Sweet Cakes was sued, and subsequently fined $135,000 dollars, and was also issued a “cease and desist” order. The latter of the two is much more concerning, as it essentially decrees they must refrain from stating their ongoing intention to hold to their moral beliefs. And what logic warrants this immediate halt of discussion? What legitimate reality makes it necessary for the court to intervene, and in doing so effectively end any and all debate? Stated in the decision:

“In addition to other emotional responses, RBC (Rachel Bowman-Cryer) described that being raised a Christian in the Southern Baptist Church, Respondent’s denial of service made her feel as if God made a mistake when he made her, that she wasn’t supposed to be, that she wasn’t supposed to love or be loved, have a family, or go to heaven. LBC (Laurel Bowman-Cryer) who was raised Catholic, interpreted the denial to represent that she was not a creature created by god, not created with a soul and unworthy of holy love and life…”

Both women were clearly upset, severely offended even. Their mental discomfort however, was entirely internal, and is even admitted to not be totally grounded in fact. The admission that they “interpreted the denial” to mean a number of different, and progressively far reaching conclusions, hints that while the feeling may have been intense for Rachel and Laurel, the offense taken was probably greater than any offense meant. And so, the debate that societal improvement depends upon is stopped, simply because two women convinced themselves that an action was much more sinister than it really was.

In a free society, we rely upon disagreement to yield improvement. When this system is working how it should, the value of a stance is based upon reason and logic. Obviously, when individuals are told that they have a warped view of reason or reality, they tend to be offended, but all this is necessary and proper to produce a more civilized, better society. People must be offended, it is a crucial byproduct of healthy discussion. In America however, as shown in the Oregon case, the value of a position is no longer decided by the value of logic. Our legal system has allowed personal offense to become the new currency of debate, and its value is decided only in the eyes of the beholder. Thus, the easiest way to move society in the direction you want is to cry offense, and insist that the value of your offense is greater than the value of the reason being used to combat you. It is impossible for society to discern what is truly beneficial under such circumstances.

Medicaid is Crowding-Out Free Clinics

Medicaid is Crowding-Out Free Clinics

The Family Foundation consistently warned that government expansion of Medicaid would increase in demand and cost. But it is also clear now that government expansion of Medicaid is crowding-out charitable and nonprofit organizations currently providing the same service. As more Medicaid eligible patients register, the less patients that free and charitable clinics will have to serve. And without a steady number of patients to serve, free medical clinics will ultimately experience a decline in state and private funding.

WATCH: Eric Metaxes Inspires at 2017 Family Foundation Gala

WATCH: Eric Metaxes Inspires at 2017 Family Foundation Gala

As promised, I wanted you to get the video LINK to The Family Foundation’s 2017 Gala program. If you weren’t there, bestselling author and radio commentator Eric Metaxes kept the attendees of the packed convention room hanging on his every word, and I wanted to make sure you had the chance to see it for yourself. And if you were with us that evening, you’re probably interested in watching it again. Either way, please SHARE THIS with your friends and family.

You will definitely be encouraged by his timely and insightful message to people of faith in an ever-darkening culture.

I also want you to have the chance to hear from me as well, as I spoke about the value and importance of ordinary people “stepping up” in often small but hugely impactful ways. I also share my vision and sense of renewed purpose for The Family Foundation in the challenging years ahead.

If you weren’t able to join us, you will definitely want to watch it now. I hope you will be enlightened, encouraged, and inspired by what you see and hear.

Note to ACLU: Join Us!

Note to ACLU: Join Us!

It’s good when organizations that often find themselves on opposite sides can work together. At The Family Foundation, we’ve sought opportunities to join coalitions of diverse groups on important issues that shouldn’t be partisan. That’s why we’ve worked with groups like the ACLU, Planned Parenthood and others on ending the shackling of pregnant prison inmates, and with similar coalitions on financial reparations for victims of eugenics, foster and kinship care issues and others.

So we were thrilled the other day when we saw that the ACLU agrees with The Family Foundation when it comes to following laws regarding the creation and removal of regulations. You see, the federal government has to follow the federal Administrative Procedure Act and Virginia government has to follow the state Administrative Process Act. These laws, as boring and cumbersome as they are, ensure that presidents and governors – or the entities tasked with regulations – cannot act unfettered. It’s a rule of law thing.

Recently we learned that the ACLU is suing President Trump for his decision to undo a requirement that religious entities pay for their employees’ birth control under the ACA. One of the arguments they are making is that the Trump administration violated the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because they allege the interim rules were released without complying with the APA’s notice and public comment requirements.

Coincidentally, that is exactly the argument being made by plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the McAuliffe administration, partially funded by The Family Foundation, after McAuliffe’s Board of Health failed to comply with the state’s APA on not just public comment requirements, but multiple other provisions as well, as it watered down health and safety standards for abortion centers. You see, following the law kinda matters, or at least it should.

Yet, to this point, the ACLU of Virginia has been strangely silent on the McAuliffe administration’s blatant violation of the law, while the ACLU national headquarters has already filed suit against Trump – though whether or not the Trump administration actually did violate APA is a matter of great question.

I’ll go on record now to say if President Trump violated the federal APA, his policy decision should be reversed and put through the proper legal channels. You see, it shouldn’t matter who the executive is or if you agree or disagree with the ultimate policy in question. The law should be followed to get to the desired end. Given the ACLU’s history of, well, let’s just say less than accurate legal arguments, I’m not super confident that their case against the President has merit, but time will tell.

I can tell you that there is no question the McAuliffe administration violated the law, numerous times. So, it would seem, if the rule of law matters to the ACLU as much as they claim, they should be joining our lawsuit any day now.